MJ: As I've explained several times, the primary issue shouldn't be whether or not gays have a right to form contractual, significant- other relationships, and have the same benefits as a heterosexual spouse. It should only be about prohibition of the use of the WORD married. Changing the "definition" of the word marriage to include homosexuals is an absolute INSULT to most heterosexuals. My "NC" requires that 'pair bonded gays' say that they are "gayged" rather than married. And requires that they use the word "gaygement" rather than marriage. Other than for that, no "do-gooders" in the USA have a right to tell anyone how they choose to live their personal lives; and any 'law' saying otherwise is UNCONSTITUTIONAL social engineering! — John A. Armistead, author of the 'New Constitution of the United States of America'—the updated, strengthened, clarified, and expanded Big Brother of the original Constitution.
On Feb 25, 12:49 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > What about the OBVIOUS AIVS1C1? > Regard$, > --MJ > "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is > certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or > has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --L. > SpoonerAt 12:20 PM 2/25/2013, you wrote:Obama Administration Urges Supreme > Court To Strike Down DOMA > By Sakib Ahmed on February 25th, 2013 (1 hour ago) > The Obama administration seems to be serious with this whole, new- > found support of gay marriage. > On Friday, the administration filed a legal brief with the Justice > Department that urges the Supreme Court to strike down a key part of > the Defense of Marriage Act. The brief formally asks the court to > declare Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional—the part that bars > recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of federal benefits > such as income taxes or federal employee benefits. The brief points > out that there are more than 1,000 federal statues and programs that > come into play depending on a person’s marital status. > The Obama administration notes that some of these couples are legally > married so targeting them is “a harsh form of discrimination that > bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society.” > Moreover, the brief states it violates the constitutional guarantee of > equal protection. -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
